Template talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 2

Alan Keyes
His own article says he is no longer a Republican. Is there any justification for listing him as a potential Republican presidential candidate? PubliusFL 14:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He either belongs with the Republicans or the Constitution Party, however he is still registered as a Republican and thus should be treated as one. --GBVrallyCI 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Alan Keyes article needs to be fixed, then. It says he is registered with the Constitution Party, not the Republican Party.  Do you have a source? PubliusFL 15:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh then in that case, I was mistaken. --GBVrallyCI 14:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like you were right about Keyes still being a Republican. The bit about him being in the Constitution Party has been removed from the article, because it appears to be based on speculation.  As of this point, however, he's not actually a candidate for any particular party's nomination, and the movement to draft him doesn't appear to be linked to any particular party.  So if he belongs in the template at all he should probably stay in the independent section for now. PubliusFL 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The FEC records states he is seeking the Republican nomination. See here -- Yellowdesk 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's from 2000. This is more current, but doesn't appear to indicate any particular party. PubliusFL 08:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good Catch. I stand corrected. Independent. (And wildly unlikely to accomplish more than 5% of any vote.) -- Yellowdesk 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Gail Parker
I am from Virginia and often get leafleted by the Indy Greens but I can find no source anywhere to say that their candidate from senate, Gail Parker, is running for President. Their website makes no mention of it and her campaign site is left over from her run against George Allen and Jim Webb. --GBVrallyCI 14:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential candidates
What is our standard for "potential candidates"? Doesn't any native born citizen over the age of 35 qualify? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, a "potential candidate", for the purposes of this template, is any eligible person who has either expressed interest in running or has been widely speculated about in the media to be contemplateing a run. Sources are needed in either case.--JayJasper 13:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, every U.S. born citizen over 35 is a potential candidate. It's in the notability that decides if they're worth writing about. -- Yellowdesk 04:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson not official yet
Why is Fred Thompson considered a candidate when he is not official yet. He should still be under candidates that have filled an exploratory committee. Casey14 00:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He is a candidate because in the Federal Election Commission's view, there is no difference between an "exploratory" committee and a "committee." And that is the standard this template uses, after we extingished a lot of hair-splitting on the topic. Clinton is running her campaign on an "exploratory committee" for example. If Thompson has filed with the FEC, then he's a candidate. -- Yellowdesk 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A revised assessment:
 * He is apparently going the "testing the waters" route, and avoiding the need to file with the FEC...for now. See:
 * The Federal Election Commission today, July 20, 2007 does not have a listing for an authorized candidate committee. See: THOMPSON, FRED (Presidential committees). Apparently he may be fundraising, but not conducting advertising or otherwise making efforts to secure the nomination, according to the standards of the filing requirements of the FEC. Which are in brief listed here:
 * Testing the Waters and Campaign Committees (Press Release) Federal Election Commission (no date). There can be a "testing the waters activity" -- it need not be reported. Everything else does. If you're reporting, you're a candidate. If he decides to advertise or act to qualify for the ballot, which would include running in a primary, then he must file, and then all of the priop fundraising activity would be requred to be reported.
 * Here's the quote: An individual who merely tests the waters, but does not campaign for office, does not have to register or report as a candidate.
 * And if you're a candidate, you undertake the following activities (implying that testing the waters candidates avoid these activities):
 * Making statements that refer to yourself as a candidate;
 * Using advertising to publicize your intention to campaign; or
 * Taking action to qualify for the ballot.
 * Making statements that refer to yourself as a candidate;
 * Using advertising to publicize your intention to campaign; or
 * Taking action to qualify for the ballot.


 * At this point I would call him a candidate, and expect him to file with the FEC in the next few weeks or months, as he is presently, under FEC rules, disabled from advertising, registering in a primary, securing primary voter support. Basically he can poll, hire committee staff and raise money until he makes the filing.
 * My present view on Thompson is he's a candidate, at a lower threshold than the further above proposition on this talk page: which endorsed using the FEC standards for filing candidates, but declared those not filing yet with the FEC as potential candidates. -- Yellowdesk 21:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Fred Thompson should be listed as "potential" until he officially announces his 2008 presidential run. Mr. DigDug 7:07 p.m. 8-15-2007.
 * He is raising money on his web site and making campaign pitches. Italiavivi 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He hasn't announced his candidacy nor has he filed with the FEC he isn't a candidate yet.-- Southern Texas  23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Charles Smith and Cox
Shouldn't they be declared under Republican candidates? Casey14 04:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. They aren't at any of the debates and neither ever show up in any polls.-- Southern Texas  05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cox, yes. He's running a national campaign.  Smith, no.  He's only campaigning in Oregon. — Valadius 15:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's absurd. Just because they arn't in the debates dosn't mean they arn't running.  The mainstream media dosn't invited them, which is not their choice.  The same goes with national polls.  They arn't included in the list of candidates.  Cox should be readded. Casey14 16:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing potential candidates discussion
I think that Chuck Hagel should be removed from the list since it is very doubtful that he will throw this hat in and because when he is included in polls he does extremely poorly. What does everybody think?-- Southern Texas  04:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Same thing for Wesley Clark. I really don't think he is running.-- Southern Texas  04:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No objection from me -- Yellowdesk 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also seeking comments on Gore's deletion from potential. -- Yellowdesk 05:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bloomberg said he is not running for pres, VP, or Secretary of the Treasury. Unlike previous rumors where he said he had no *plans* to run, now he has said he *will not* do so. MatthewM 19:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the transformation from "potential" to "self-declared potential" and "draft movements" has been a good transition. Kudos to those who worked this out. -- Yellowdesk 03:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Poll for John Cox
I would like to have a poll to see if you think that John Cox should be included or not. I don't know how to make the wikipedia polls for talk pages, so if someone would like to set that up that would be great. If not, we can do a freehand vote.

John Cox should be included because he is included in many national polls, however registering low. He is campaigning nationally. The media is excluding him from debates. According to Wikipeda's no-bias POV, media should not be able to sway us, with their propaganda. John Cox will also be in the Iowa Straw poll with all the other major candidates: http://www.iowagop.net/. Yes or No? I say yes, he should be included. Casey14 23:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to including Cox. When candidates like Mike Gravel are eventually dropped from the debates, Wikipedia will still list his candidacy.  Cox should be included on the Republican side, too. Italiavivi 19:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should Cox be included and not these:

We aren't listing minor candidates because it would clutter up the template. Cox is a minor candidate, I never see him in any polls, and he is not included in the debates because his polling is so low. NOT MAJOR. Read United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008-- Southern Texas  16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hugh Cort
 * David Ernst Furniss
 * Daniel Ayers Gilbert
 * Walter D. Kennedy
 * Mark Klein
 * Michael Charles Smith
 * Richard Michael Smith
 * Raymond L. McKinney
 * Keith Sprankle
 * Vern Wuensche


 * I guess you didnt' look at my link to the Iowa Straw Poll. He was included, with every other "major candidate".  http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07may10.cox.fox.exclusion/index.html  That's another link.  Please, we do not represent Big Media on Wikipedia, or their reasons for discluding candidates for their own selfish reasons. Casey14 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's another link including Cox alongside the "majors": http://www.gastongop.org/Default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 . Casey14 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who participates in the straw poll. McCain and Giuliani didn't participate so that is not a way to determine who is minor and who is major. Cox gets way lower than 1% in the polls about, .2% and can in no way be taken seriously. The media doesn't include him because he is not major.-- Southern Texas  18:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The media's willingness (or lack of willingness) to include candidates in televised debates does not determine Wikipedia's content. Cox has a national campaign, and competed in the Iowa Straw Poll.  He's not on the same level as the other red-lines and minors you link. Italiavivi 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. I believe they are on the same level, he is polling at .2%. Somebody polling this low cannot be considered "major" and have their "campaign" taken seriously. Non-notable candidates should not be listed, that is up to par with wikipedia's standards.-- Southern Texas  22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a No-Bias Initiative. John Cox has all the same credentials as all the other "majors". He is not on the same level as the ones you listed, because they are not nationally campaigning.  McCain and Giuliani didn't participate, but they were still on the Straw Poll.  I guess it dosn't matter how many links I give you, because your mind won't change, but Wikipedia's policy is behind us.  Casey14 23:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a policy of notability WP:NOTABLE, please follow this policy instead of trying to blame the media for everything. Cox is a minor candidate with a campaign that is a joke and should not be taken seriously. Stop trying to act like it is biased to not include somebody that is polling at .2%, how about people that are at .0003% or .00833%, shouldn't they be included? Maybe I'll decide that I'll run and file the proper papers and then put my name on the list. No, this is ridiculous and this needs to be the standard, if your campaign is lower than 1% and you're not included in debates at different events sponspered by different organizations and media outlets you should not be included on this list per WP:NOTABLE.-- Southern Texas  23:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find an ACADEMIC source that states John Cox is not a notable candidate, then I might somewhat agree with you. Notability is not just based off poll numbers that are based off of the media's coverage and name notability.  Right now three members agree with including Cox, yet you are the only one against the inclusion of him.  If Cox is notable enough to have his own page, while running nationally for president, then he is just as notable to be included on this list.   Casey14 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to wikipedia's notability standards: "Notability is not the same as the concepts of fame or importance. A subject that is not famous or that is not important is not automatically non-notable; and conversely a subject that is notable is not automatically famous nor important. The concepts of fame and importance have implicit in them the notion of a target population — a subject is famous amongst a group of people, a subject is important to a particular set of people. Notability has no such implicit notion. Notability is independent of specific groups of people." Casey14 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also according to some nation-wide polls, Dodd, Gravel,and Hunter have 0 percent. Why are they notable, according to your standard? Casey14 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not looking at mainstream polls. I use mainstream polls that are notable and have a good reputation and Cox's numbers are so low in these polls he doesn't even put up a number. The campaign of Cox is not at all notable. Apparantly he's only important to about .2% of the public. Is this a large enough group? I don't think so. I could think of people who don't have an article about them yet are important to more than .2% of the American public. I'm not saying that Cox is non-notable but his campaign is non-notable when compared to Romney's, Giuliani's and other's campaigns.-- Southern Texas  01:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Ames Straw Poll is a notable-enough event, and he was included. The guy is running a national campaign, as opposed to other candidates who are only running in their own state, etc.  Discriminating against the guy just because he's never held a government position is outrageous. — Valadius 01:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because somebody participates in the straw poll and finishes in last place with .3% of the vote behind two candidates that didn't even participate doesn't mean a candidate is notable enough to be on this list. Its not discriminating, his campaign is weak, unimportant, and frivolous, its non notable. Thanks for mentioning that he never held a government post, I never brought that up so it helps my argument when you characterize my supposed "discrimination" of the campaign with something that I never said. Why don't you attack the substance of my argument. These other candidates are running national campaigns like Cox and by your standards this is "discrimination" against them as well. We have to draw the line, I and the mainstream draw the line at 1%, wikipedia should reflect this and not give a minor candidate even standing with candidates that are running legitimate campaigns. Otherwise by your standards all the candidates I listed should be on the list as well, if not your counterdicting yourselves.-- Southern Texas  03:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You just said his campaign is "unimportant, weak, and Frivolous". That is your own biased opinion, and again it breaks Wikipedia's No-Bias POV.  All the candidates you listed cannot be on the list, because they are not campaigning nationally.  John Cox finished last yet, all the other candidates were national candidates, in the Ames Straw Poll.  Wouldn't that also mean he is a major candidate?  Stop with your frivolous personal vendetta against a candidate.  Wake up. Casey14 18:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is is my opinion that he is polling lower than 1%? Is it my opinion that the mainstream political observers would consider his campaign as a joke? How am I having a "vendetta" against him by presenting the facts? Ask yourself do you have a "vendetta" against all the candidates I listed above. By your standards Giuliani and McCain should be removed from the list because they didn't participate in the straw poll. No the Iowa Straw Poll doesn't determine who is major or who is minor, the nationwide polls do. They are the gauge of America. Why do you have a "vendetta" against facts?-- Southern Texas  18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mainstream political observers consider his campaign a joke because most of them are part of one of the major media corporations, who have already picked the candidate they want to win, and will put down all the minors (which include guys like Huckabee, Biden, etc), so that their candidate will win. They want negativity to come to the non majors.  Again, you didn't listen to me earlier.  Giuliani and McCain were in the straw poll, maybe you can't read or look up the results.  They were in it.  They didn't particpate in the events, but they were in the straw poll.  The nationwide polls are outdated and cannot determine who is a major candidate or not.  According to you, Dodd, Gravel, and Hunter shouldn't be included because they poll 0% in the non-scientific nationwide polls, which usually only polls the elderly who do not have caller-id.  What about all the people today that do not have land-lines, but cell phones.  Most of the people who are polled in these polls watch the major media stations (or don't pay attention to politics at all), only getting exposed to the big 3 in each party, thus corrupting the polling procedure.  Most of the time, those polled won't even vote in the primaries, since only a small portion of Americans vote in the primaries, those that are politically involved, more than not. Wikipedia is not here to pick the president of the United States.  Cox is in nationwide polls, competed in the Straw Poll, alongside Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and McCain, is in most smaller straw polls, and has a nationwide campaign.  What else do you want.  Do you want him to have 30 minutes in a debate, while Giuliani gets 5 minuets?    Casey14 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you're not making sense and your supplying misinformation. Only Gravel has fallen under 1% in mainstream polls but he still climbs above that number time to time, Cox on the other hand is always way below 1%. Why do you think the media hates Cox? It doesn't make any sense. The list should only be for major candidates that are above 1% not jokes like Cox.-- Southern Texas  00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I tired of talking about it. You seem to think that the media has some conspiracy against this guy for who knows what reason. I say we just take a poll and end this.-- Southern Texas  00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting

 * Remove I support the removal of Cox from the list-- Southern Texas  00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep Cox, he's running a national campaign.—Valadius 01:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * RemoveHoponpop69 06:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep My reasons have already been explained. Casey14 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep He's an official candidate and his name's only three letters anyway. Mr. DigDug. 3:11 p.m. 8-16-2007
 * Keep Of course he should be included, Wikipedia is better than the media! All national campaigning candidates deserves documentation. Lord Metroid 08:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The media does not set Wikipedia's classifactions. First we remove Cox, who next?  Maybe Mike Gravel?  Both have national campaigns, but have been deemed "minor" by the media. Italiavivi 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ames
I don't think that the current Ames page has any business on this template. This template is specificly for the 2008 Presidential election, and the Ames page, as it is now, only dedicates a small portion to the 2008 event. If someone wants to create a page that is specificly relating to the 2007 event, then I think it would be alright to be included in the template, but not at this point. Mburn16 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We could link to the specific section within the article. Italiavivi 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lesser-known Unknown candidates
I think the lesser known candidates shouldn't be listed on the templete. People like Dal LaManga, John Cox, Walter Kennedy, Hugh Cort, and Ray McKinney. Every election, there are dozens of unknown who run for president. I think that if you're not participating in the debates, or mentioned in the media, or are not only polling above 1%, but not being polled at all, you shouldn't be listed on the templete. --Hobie Hunter 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If they have an article on wikipedia why should we withhold them from this template since they are running?-- Southern Texas  05:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be listed because they aren't major candidates. None of them are participating in any debates and none of them are ever listed in polls. Non-notable candidates should not be listed. Besides, if every unknown candidate was listed on the templete, it woul be more than twice as big. --Hobie Hunter 12:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's certainly the case that as many as 100 individuals register for the NH primary. We not going to track them. In general the minimum standard has to be the same as for all of wikipedia: is there enough notability so that sourcing exists besides the candidate's own self-published statements. Dal LaMagna's page, for example has no sourcing besides the candidate's campaign web site, and this is a strong indicator that he's not notable enough to be on this template. I have not checked the other candidate pages.  I  judge that the existence of a page at Wikipedia is not an acceptable standard (even when paired with the filing a statement of candidacy and declarataion of campaign committee with the FEC)...as any "gnat" candidate can get a volunteer to put up a page here. "May be included" means it is necessary to make a judgment on the minimum standards and compare them to the candidate, it's not an automatic "in." -- Yellowdesk 14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the qualification to the template's note: ...may be included on this template,... subject to the usual notability standards -- Yellowdesk 14:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not reporting on the election, we are just linking to the pages for the candidates. Regardless of how notable they are, if they are notable enough to have an article on wikipedia they are therefore notable enough to be linked to from this template. If they aren't notable maybe they should be brought to AFD but while their page still exists they are still notable enough to be listed here.-- Southern Texas  17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You presume that all articles are actually well sourced. They in fact are not, as I note above. If candidate X, who has registered with the FEC, and has entered the prirmary of one state shows up with an article, that is insufficient to be listed on the navigation template. There has to be a standard of interest in the various sources so that a well sourced article is written. If not, not notable enough to be on the navigation template; the Articles for Delection forum is not a standard for this partucular listing. The individuals may be notable for other reasons, and still be "gnat" candidates. -- Yellowdesk 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether being a "gnat" candidate, they still are a candidate and they still have an article. This template serves as a link to different candidates. Therefore all candidates who have an article must be here. If the article is not well sourced that is an issue of the article not of the template. If we know they are a candidate for president because they filed with the FEC and they have an article on wikipedia they shall be included on this template. Any other criteria would be open to different interpretations and would cause editing conflicts as evident by the John Cox argument above. Lets make it simple and easy for everybody to follow not blurry and open for conflict.-- Southern  Texas  19:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the John Cox argument, you made some pretty good points about him in the discussion, Southern Texas. The templete lists major canidates, and last time I checked, being a chiropracter doesn't mean you're a major candidate. If you're not even being polled our not mentioned in any news media, or not paricipating in the debates at all, you shouldn't be listed. --Hobie Hunter 20:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wrong. The whole argument would have been adverted had there been a standard put in place. I think my suggestion will prevent all future disagreements of the such because the lines of polling and debates is blurred (John Cox will be in a future MSNBC debate but has not been in any other debates, Alan Keyes has been left off of many debates but was at the PBS debate, Mike Gravel swivels between 0 and 1% in polls and both he and Dennis Kucinich have been left out of some debates, and Cort and McKinney both participated in the Texas Straw Poll). Furthermore, the occupation of a candidate doesn't matter if they have a page which should be the standard to end all confusion.-- Southern Texas  21:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an eminently reasonable standard, STX: known FEC filing and nonspam WP article. Interesting FYI: Cox appears at http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/pres_cf/2008filings.html because he has moved over $50K, while Cort and McKinney haven't. Also, Cox and Keyes were in the 9/17/07 Values Voters Debate in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, which I attended. Of course I would remiss not to remind everyone politely to vote for Paul. John J. Bulten 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If a candidate hasn't participated in any debates and isn't regularly included in polls they shouldn't be listed. Besides, the Wikipedia Article standard is flawed because they are notable, because they're running for president. We should remove Ray McKinney, Hugh Cort, and possibly John Cox. --Hobie Hunter 13:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just your opinion, you have no support in policy for this and a comment like this is not constructive. Everything you've said has already been addressed, Don't complicate this, don't take off candidates because you never heard of them, don't cause edit warring. A good criteria has already been established and anything else would defy reason, if you disagree about the notability of any candidate bring it to AFD, don't come up with your own standard.-- Southern Texas  17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should take a vote:

Support
 * Candidates that don't participate in debates or appear in any polls should not be listed. Something like 20 candidates file each year. Should we list those too? --Hobie Hunter 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree --65.10.8.155 20:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a Democracy voting is not a way to resolve disputes. Where in policy can you support your claims? And as a sidenote please do not use sockpuppetry since voting doesn't prove anything.-- Southern Texas  21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, man! I thought this was all resolved with a neat standard and I was about to push the button on adding Gilbert and Sprankle because they have articles. But I see we still have stragglers from what is otherwise workable, and I also noted that both articles were stubs added 10/28 by Tipradio. Well I'll wait a bit and see if someone else adds them. My perception is that there is no question on adding them, it's just a matter of agreeing on the standard. BTW being in debates or polls is -not- a standard because there is no way of knowing what constitutes a debate or poll. I believe I saw Mickey Mouse and Stalin among the write-ins in straw polls this year, and they have pages too! They're much more fun in this template than Gilbert and Sprankle. John J. Bulten 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There were 179 candidates on April 1. I am all for adding as many to the template as are notable enough to stay up on WP for more than a few days. And I'm still hoping that Sprankle will drop out and endorse Paul too. John J. Bulten 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I will add them myself. This template is supposed to show readers all articles that deal with the 2008 Presidential election and that includes all candidates that have a page. The only user who doesn't want to put candidates that have an article on the template has shown above that he uses sockpuppetry, what crediability does that leave him?-- Southern Texas  23:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks STX! Also keep an eye out for Michael Arterburn and Albert Benjamin Howard, who appear at u4prez.com. Did I mention that Howard wants Paul for veep?!
 * I will report Hobie Hunter at WP:SSP. I was going to defer this idea, but there really is no ability to assume good faith, for this reason. 65.10.8.155, after voting with Hobie, two minutes later deleted a discussion from the archives, against explicit archive rules, where Hobie was accused of exactly the same sockpuppetry in a similar vote. If the IP is not a sock it's a meatpuppet, alas, there is no other explanation. John J. Bulten 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is not universal agreement that "this template is supposed to show readers all articles that deal with the 2008 election." I favor minimum standards. More than 200 individuals have registered with the Federal Elections Commission. This template will never have all registerees on it. Of those FEC filers, only twenty two individuals have had enough activity to warrent electronic filings with the FEC: that threshold being $50,000 of activity, or the reasonable expectation of that much activity (most recently updated September 2007). See: http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/pres_cf/2008filings.html. I have not checked on the party activities, for the Green, Libertarian, Constitution and so on.  My view continues to be that if any independant or party "candidate" cannot persuade approximately 2,000 people to give $25.00 to their campmaign, they are not notable enough to have sufficient number of sources write about them, or actually influence on this nation of millions of voters, as a candidate. -- Yellowdesk 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You want a minimum standard? How about having an article? This is best minimum standard because as we have seen with Steve Adams, we don't have to sort out notability, the AFD will. A template is a map to all articles that pertain to a subject. It shouldn't be any more complex than that.-- Southern Texas  20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)